Share this

Vice President Joe Biden accused tea party Republicans of having “acted like terrorists” during the debate to raise the nation’s debt limit, according to POLITICO sources, who were in the room during a two-hour Democratic Caucus meeting that Biden attended. The comment has raised the ire of Sarah Palin, who called the vice president’s comments “quite vile” during a Fox News appearance. And presidential candidate Michele Bachmann sent a fundraising email last night citing Biden’s “terrorists” line, saying that “Democrats have stooped to a new low.”

If these comments had come from a Republican, would he/she be given a free pass? Does Biden’s hot rhetoric reflect bad judgment or just frustration with the times?

Vice President Biden’s gaffe would be funny if it weren't so serious. Referring to people who are participating in our democratic process and using their First Amendment rights as terrorists is, at best, another foot-in-mouth opportunity for the vice president. At worst, it’s an attempt at intimidation and a continued effort to marginalize the tea party and its supporters as radical, even dangerous, extremists.

The reason Vice President Biden is so bitter is because the political debate in this country has shifted, hopefully permanently, from “how much can we spend on this program” to “how much should we cut from this program?” This is a liberals’ worst nightmare, threatening their very existence and mission to spend taxpayers’ money and make Americans more dependent on government.

Shrill, nasty, and boorish remarks by Vice President Biden only continue to harm the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, D.C. His comments are particularly shameful coming just a few hours before we saw Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ return to the House. So much for the “new tone.”

There can be little doubt that had Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or, especially, Dick Cheney labeled political opponents as terrorists, it would be a lead news story - and rightly so. Yet when the vice president says such things - and he has both a long history and alarming frequency of doing so - it is greeted with a yawn or even an "aw, shucks" attitude of "That's our Joe!" as if it is something from a Saturday Night Live skit.

Politics is full of heated rhetoric, as we've certainly seen over these past weeks. But let's not forget that it was President Obama who called for greater civility in political rhetoric in his speech in Arizona following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (and what a great moment it was to see her back on the House floor last night). If the president cannot keep his own v ice president from such venomous language, ultimately those words are meaningless.

What is outrageous in all of this is the gall of Palin and company, claiming to be outraged. They have repeatedly used ridicule and demeaning language to delegitimize opponents, including the president of the United States. I suppose they can't take what they dish out. Their feigning victimhood is pathetic and does grow tiring. This episode reminds me of when my daughter was three and came complaining about her brother, saying "he hit me back".

Biden is far from the only person to use that phrase to describe the tea party’s during this arduous process. And it’s laughable that Bachmann and Palin would object to such language, given their own histories with incendiary words.

Do they not remember saying “paling around with terrorists,” “blood libel,” (Palin), or “un-American,” and “re-education camps” (Bachmann)? They are simply trying to use the debt ceiling debate for their own short-term political gain, much like how Republicans have handled this entire process.

That's what I love about Joe Biden, he says what he thinks - even though it gets him in trouble sometimes - unlike so many of the mealy-mouths in D.C. who carefully parse every word.

And it was an apt, if impolitic, description for a bunch of members of Congress who threatened to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States, and possibly also the U.S. and world economies, if they didn't get their way.

Whether or not Biden’s remarks should get a free pass, it will. Democratic gaffes rarely receive the same level of scrutiny as those made by Republicans.

All that, however, is a misdirection from the real point: Biden’s equating the actions of one of the two major U.S. political parties with those of “terrorists” suggests strongly that he really does not understand terrorism. And that is something with which we should all be concerned.

How can we depend on the vice president to be a forceful advocate for keeping the nation safe from terrorists who would clearly strike at the United States once again if they could when he doesn’t understand what they might do? Terrorists do not play “hardball” in legislative negotiations; terrors blow up or assassinate the negotiators.

It’s an important difference, one you would expect the vice president of the United States - a former chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations - to understand. That he apparently doesn’t is of greater concern than whether or not his remark is going to get a pass.

The right wing Republicans clearly do not care how many innocents are hurt in order to get their way. So what is the correct term for that kind of behavior? Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are free to answer.

Vice President Joe Biden is denying that he called tea partiers “terrorists” and I don’t blame him. If he did say it, it was the wrong note to strike. The debt deal that passed the House yesterday and must still jump that hurdle in the Senate is only the first step on the road to resolving the debt crisis for real.

Even if the Senate goes along, there is the matter of the 12-person House-Senate special committee that needs to come to agreement on spending cuts of between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion by Thanksgiving or Nov. 23. The vice president has played a key role in negotiating the initial agreement. He must stay engaged and not enraged in the months ahead.

As many are guessing, the real issue in the upcoming presidential election will be job, jobs, jobs. Once we get through this debt ceiling mess, Obama and Biden should focus on a jobs bill. They will need the backing of at least some conservative Republicans who want to do right for their constituents back home and also better position themselves to get re-elected. Let’s leave the name calling behind us.

Biden's mouth has been a detriment to Democrats (and, particularly to himself) for years. Of course, any Republican who spoke as he does would be vilified in the press. With this loudmouth, it is always "just good old Joe being Joe." It took some doing to lend a vestige of credibility to Sarah Palin, but Biden just did it.

Don't expect her to do much with it. Let's say this for Bachmann, whatever her flaws, she has stayed in the game and fights for what she believes in. And back to Biden, tell me again why any Republican of any stripe would want to sit down and negotiate with him.

Such rhetoric doesn't help. Apparently the Democrats have polling data showing that they can make gains by attacking the tea party. I'm skeptical. The tea party is an enormous grassroots movement, with no defined hierarchy, representing millions of ordinary citizens deeply concerned about the direction of their country. They are the exact opposite of a "special interest."

Democrats seem determined to make sure that tea partiers vote Republican, which two years ago was hardly a sure thing. And I don't think such language appeals to Independents, either. In the end, I just don't think constantly insulting your constituents is smart politics.

I’m appalled to see so many in the Arena not only defend Vice President Biden’s use of the word “terrorist” to describe his fellow Americans but to double down on it. For those of us who were in New York, Washington or Pennsylvania on September 11, the term “terrorist” holds real meaning.

For those who watched the towers fall or the Pentagon smolder, or heard “Let’s Roll”, the term “terrorist” holds real meaning. We will be reminded of this in great detail in just a few weeks. To diminish the magnitude of these events with such shrill discourse is tragic. It is reminiscent of when so many on the left rushed to assign conservative ownership of the heartbreaking events in Tucson.

We should all strive for a more civil society. We should all refrain from ad hominem attacks and using extraordinary derision to label ideological opponents. Whether we think the other side does it too is not an excuse. It’s embarrassing.

Congressman Mike Doyle shamefully said in the meeting with Biden: “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Really? Staying true to the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government, principles that got many members elected, earns this language? Yes, there are many politicians who use regrettable language on occasion. Vice President Biden holds a higher office that comes with greater responsibility, and he should take responsibility for these intolerable words.

Biden’s comments reflect bad judgment. "Don’t get mad. Get even," would have been a much better comment by Biden. Moreover, while the tea party may have acted like terrorists, the Democrats, and especially the Biden and Obama, acted like naïve idiots. A little mea culpa might have been in order for Biden.

Not just Biden. Jan Schakowsky said that Republicans were "fragging" the American people and the American economy on the floor of the House. This is an elected member of House Leadership (chief deputy whip).

During the debate post-Giffords shooting, the media fetishized Palin using cross-hairs for congressional districts. Did anyone worry that the DCCC used cross-hairs for congressional districts? No.

There is a ridiculous double standard. There is no serious scrutiny of the way that Democrats engage in political debate.

Joe Biden is only the latest participant in what has become a laughable effort by the "progressive" left (and their media enablers) to portray the tea party, or anyone who seeks to reverse the frantic expansion of government since Democrats rose to power in 2006 and 2008, as "terrorists," "suicide bombers," "extortionists," "hostage takers," etc.

For a good (as in "bad") example, see Joe Nocera's column in today's New York Times. "The country," you see, "has watched in horror as the tea party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people." Their ultimate goal? "Blowing up the country."

I would expect to see a column like this on the pages of, if not The Onion, then the student newspaper of a good prep school on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

The fact that this "tea party terrorist" meme has emerged so enthusiastically from mainstream liberal politicians and media tells me three things:

1) They have lost the argument. Whether you love them or hate them (I'm agnostic), tea partiers do not seek to "blow up the country." They seek to prevent a failed Euro-style cradle-to-grave democratic model from taking hold in America. If that's "radical," then color me radical. In fact, color around 80 percent of the country radical.

2) They do not accept that they have lost the argument. If Democrats were wise, they would have learned from the shellacking they took in November 2010. They didn't. Apparently they still think that mocking, belittling, and hurling vicious invectives at those who oppose their political ideology is the pathway to victory in the next election.

3) Democrats still do not understand the America that exists between the coasts, and are well on their way to getting doused with an even bigger dose of electoral reality in 2012 than they did in 2010.

Of course Biden used poor judgment (particularly in the wake of the Giffords shooting), but the vice president will be given a pass because the liberal media detests the tea party. Equating tea partiers with terrorist is ridiculous given that all they did was get mad, get elected and followed through on their campaign promise to bring national attention to the federal government's out of control debt spurned on by its irresponsible spending habits.

On the other hand, if the shoe had been on the other foot, and a Republican had equated progressives to "terrorists," the media would have tarred and feathered that individual. The only positive here is that tea party candidates, like Bachmann and Palin, will likely see a boost in their fundraising numbers which is why they are more than happy to play Joe's little game.

Sarah "palling around with terrorists" Palin calling Biden's terrorist remark "quite vile" is an interesting example of projection. Maybe we could all call it even and, in light of the poignant return of Gabby Giffords to Congress, remove violent rhetoric from our political discourse lest it yield real-life consequences.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

We experienced the best of Vice President Joe Biden over the weekend when he orchestrated the debt deal. We experienced the worst yesterday when he said that the tea party Republicans acted like terrorists. This is what you get with Joe Biden.

He can be the best negotiator in the room - a conciliator, fair and inclusive, working for the best solution for the nation. Or he can be a dolt.

Those who have worked with Biden have seen both sides. All in all, the upside of his good qualities is so positive that I put aside his "loose cannon" comments. We needed him over the weekend and he was there.

You left out the third possibility, that it’s an accurate description. They held the world economy hostage to ideological demands. On the other hand, Sarah Palin’s ire is as irrelevant as she is to this process. If she wants to be more relevant, she can run for office.

When Rep. Joe Wilson called the president a liar during the state of the union address not only was he given a free pass, he used his outburst to raise millions on line and was rewarded for his behavior. Same with Rep. Allen West when he threw a tantrum directed at Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

If reports are accurate about Vice President Biden’s comments, yes, he should apologize. They are not like terrorists but the Republican conference is like a bunch of spoiled children. Speaker Boehner must be down on his knees in thankful prayer for the Democrats who pulled his disaster out of the fire one more time.

Under the debt ceiling agreement a so-called super committee of Congress will be tasked with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts to the deficit by Thanksgiving. In theory this joint select committee will have the teeth to do something big to slash the deficit. Language in the legislation requires leaders in the House and Senate to bring the package to the floor of each chamber — without an opportunity for amendments.

But are super committee members any more likely than rank-and-file lawmakers to make unpopular choices like scaling back Medicare and Social Security benefits, slashing defense spending and/or raising taxes? Is the new committee a political ploy or serious effort at deficit and debt reduction?

If they’re not seeking re-election. Seriously speaking, it will be a defining moment for the country and their careers. Hopefully the trigger mechanism will lead to a note of seriousness and urgency that will be constructive.

We won't know until we see who is named to the committee. If people like Tom Coburn and Mark Warner are named to the committee it has a chance to do something big. If not, then it probably doesn't produce a significant product.

The committee is a congressional theater tactic in an attempt to convince voters that this time they are really serious. Wasn't there a deficit commission already? Is the real reason Congress has failed to significantly deal with this because there haven''t been enough committees, commissions, or white papers on the subject? No one has really come up with legitimate ideas as of yet?

There is a deep ideological divide. Democrats want to start with tax increases which are anathema to the GOP. And, the closer the 2012 elections get the more difficult it will be to find a point of compromise. Neither side is inclined to budge, nor give the other any legitimate claim to victory.

I think the chances that this committee can find the holy grail of deficit reduction and get this congress to approve it, is somewhere between zero and none. What is needed is another election to change the majority in the Senate and the occupant in the White House.

We should all be grateful that this period of uncertainty over raising the debt ceiling is coming to a close with the signing of today’s legislation by the president. However, we should be very concerned about the period of uncertainty that is on the horizon as we enter the next phase of the debate concerning the implementation of the “Super Congress” and the herculean task they have in the weeks ahead. Endorsing the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission as a roadmap from the start will send a strong message about the work and intent of the new committee.

These 12 individuals will have a tremendous role in establishing the size and scope of government for years to come. However, what can this group propose that hasn’t already been presented by the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson Commission appointed by President Obama? The White House may have made an error by not endorsing the commission’s recommendations last winter, but that in itself does not invalidate the strength of the recommendations which were broad based in their potential impact. The commission called for additional revenues and adjustments to portions of the social safety net, which President Obama and the overwhelming majority of the American people support.

For The White House, this is the second bite at the apple for that balanced approach. However, if the topic of additional revenues or entitlement reforms are as intolerable for the Super Congress as they were in the latter part of the debt ceiling debate, it will be groundhog day all over again as we race toward the Thanksgiving break - huge decisions being made under duress with no hearings, comments or direct input from the American people.

Bowles-Simpson was seen as a good start by groups as ideologically divergent as The Heritage Foundation and The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The committee would be wise to adopt Bowles-Simpson as the starting point. The White House and Congressional leaders would be wise to start selling this committee to the American people now so that as it completes its work, it has the credibility to move forward with broad, strong support.

If Boehner and McConnell cave in and make their appointments from the ranks of the tea party, brace yourselves. If, on the other hand, the moderates insist on being represented, you have a scintilla of hope that something reasonable might appear. And if Obama leaves them alone rather than having his team be part of the mix early - which many observers say should have happened in the debt ceiling debate - that's another recipe for stalemate and misfire.

Prognosis: the threat of across-the-board cuts is dire only to the extent that the Administration and the committee members care. A repeat of this summer's fiasco cannot be an option.

The super committee is a total political ploy. “Super committees” and “blue ribbon commissions” are Washington-speak for “just kick the can down the road to the next generation.” Its mandate to cut an additional $1.5 trillion in debt is laughable when we are staring at a staggering $14.3 trillion debt that continues to grow.

It is a near certainty that the super committee will deadlock because Democrats continue to insist that economy killing tax hikes be part of the equation. Our unemployment rate stands at 9.2 percent with fresh numbers coming out at the end of the week. It would be disastrous to raise taxes while the Obama recession continues.

President Obama has learned that organizing a community is a lot easier than organizing a country. Maintaining a democratic republic is difficult work and hard decisions need to be made by the full Congress. Congress should stay in town through the August recess and work on cutting the $4 trillion the credit agencies have asked for to keep our AAA rating.

Based on recent history – didn’t we just do this with Simpson-Bowles? – the super committee will not produce a viable plan that will meet the needs of future generations of Americans. D.C. is fiddling while America’s economy burns.

We can only hope that these members feel a special pressure to put politics aside (at least every day politics) and get serious. The reality is that they will be under an intense microscope and open for severe criticism if they do not produce.

The mystery at this point is who will be appointed and how will they work as a group. This is like a high school lock-in and the eventual participant mix is highly anticipated and will say a lot about how this will work or not work.

Trey HardinSenior VP at VOX Global; Republican strategist and former aide to House Leadership :

It's not a political ploy. I believe the deal-makers thought it made sense at the time but didn't necessarily think it through -- likely because they considered the makeup of the commission a minor logistical matter compared to the priority of agreeing on the overall numbers.

A commission of 12 is way too small for making the necessary recommendations. Too many voices in Congress will feel that they are being left out which will result in the same amount of rhetoric and game-playing that we just witnesses over the last month or so.

Who gets appointed will tell whether this is a real moment or just a farce. If any "all or nothings" - R or D - get in the room, it's not serious. If the committee is comprised of thoughtful and courageous leaders, it might be a watershed.

This much is certain - in this moment the best solution will be the one that hurts every party and every faction. There can be no obvious or dramatic political winners or losers, otherwise it will fail. But if the members accept their role with humility and see this as a time and a place where they actually must rise above party to free future generations from our insolvency, it can be that all important first step.

The polls that I have seen don't show that either cutting the military budget or raising taxes on the wealthy are unpopular. It seems the basic problem is that if we have to reduce the deficit (we don't - the people with money on the line are lending us trillions at just three percent interest) we have a popular way and then a way favored by the elite.

The popular way, which would garner widespread support from the public, but is hated by the business and media elite, would focus on reducing military spending and raising taxes on the wealthy. However, the elite use their campaign contributions and control over major media outlets to rule out this option.

This is why almost no one has heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, which has the backing of almost 100 members of Congress. The elite media refuse to even mention it for fear that it might gain support.

On the other hand the Wall Street elites, as typified by investment banker Peter Peterson, desperately want to see Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cut back. They are spending a fortune to push this agenda. The media further this effort by relying largely, sometimes exclusively, for the Wall Street funded experts as their sources on budget debates.

Of course the obstacle that this route faces is that cuts to these programs are overwhelmingly opposed across the political spectrum, from tea party Republicans to liberal Democrats. So, we have one budget path that is supported by the bulk of the public but opposed by those who pay for political campaigns and own the media and another budget path pushed by the wealthy and the elite media that is hated by the vast majority of the population. Therefore we get gridlock, and no, the new super committee will not provide a way around it.

What is Congress going to tell American families at Thanksgiving - that they created a plan for jobs, growth, housing, and the American safety net to help the people, or that they gave a holiday bonus to the top two percent? That Congress preserved Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants and veterans benefits, or cut them?

The super committee should detail the exact consequences of the cuts that occur with and without adopting their plans. Don't tell us there are no jobs in spending cuts and tax reforms - if you can't find any you shouldn't be in Congress.

American families sitting around the holiday table won't be giving thanks to politicians who cut hard-earned entitlements, retain tax loopholes for oil companies and job outsourcers, or fail to make progress in our lives. This $1.5 trillion Thanksgiving turkey had better create jobs or Congresspeople stand to risk losing theirs.

Super committee members are more likely to make unpopular choices because draconian cuts will take place otherwise and it only takes a majority and not a super-majority for the committee recommendation to go forward.

People forget that the big problem in recent years is not Congress being unable to act, but the challenge of getting 60 votes in the Senate to cut off filibusters. Without that super majority requirement, the DREAM Act would have passed and so would lots of other legislation.

I think we need to view this in the broader context of the deal. Far from being "historic," as many were quick to proclaim, this is a paltry deal that does little to solve America's spending and debt problems. Under the agreement, spending will continue to rise faster than inflation and population growth combined, and the debt will continue to increase at a very rapid rate.

The deal indicates how Washington has not only ruined our fiscal standing, but corrupted our language. The deal is described as one with no new taxes, but in fact it presumes substantial tax increases will take effect - higher payroll tax rates in 2012, an significant increase in individual income tax rates in 2013, and the implementation of Obamacare taxes in 2014. And it is sold as all "spending cuts," but those are not "cuts" as normal people would define them - they are reductions in the planned rate of increase.

And how significant are reductions in the rate of growth? Not very. If they are all implemented, they would amount to about five percent of what the government plans to spend in the next decade. And it can't be emphasized enough - not a five percent reduction from what we actually spend, but a reduction of five percent from the $50 trillion or so the government plans to spend.

In that context, the "super committee" lacks both the power and the teeth to "do something big to slash the deficit." I give credit to Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell for doing all they could - without their leadership, and the spark provided by House Republicans, we wouldn't even have gotten this much.

Under the language of the debt ceiling agreement, there will be $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction whether or not the super committee reaches a decision as to how to do it. The brunt of the cuts will be borne by discretionary domestic and defense spending. There will be no new revenues, not even reform of the worst abuses of the tax code.

If the Republicans appoint only committee members who are absolutely committed to opposing tax reform there are only two possible solutions - the automatic cuts go into effect or once again the Democrats get rolled by agreeing to big spending cuts with no new revenue, just as they have in the past two budget agreements. Until the president and the Senate leadership somehow find the courage to stand up to those who think subsidies for corporate jets are more important than health care for the elderly, we are just heading for more trouble.

Whether or not the so-called super committee of Congress finds ways to hammer out proposals to reduce the deficit depends on the senators and congressmen appointed. The debt ceiling agreement was not only struck in order to avoid plunging the country into a deeper recession; it was also crafted to position the parties for the battles they wish to wage or avoid in the 2012 elections.

Electoral imperatives weighed more heavily than pure economic benefits in the debt ceiling process. Although these two imperatives will still influence the deliberations of the super committee, the balance struck between them may be different as the depth of the recession deepens.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

The $1.5 trillion in cuts will happen. That is the big news. Sure, the super committee is a ploy. Congress kicked the can down the road again because time had run out. As is so often the case with compromises, the devil is in the details - in this case the "details" are the senators and representatives appointed. We will learn a lot about the seriousness of the senate and house leaders by those choices.

But whether the committee decides what to cut or punts by failing to agree, the cuts will happen.

Congress couldn't do its job so it passed the buck to a new select committee. Creating another committee in DC is like bringing coal to Newcastle. We already had a blue ribbon deficit committee and Washington ignored its recommendations. Congress will also ignore the new committee's budget plan.

The goal of the tea party is to bring the federal government to its knees and the joint select committee is a great vehicle for doing just that. If Congress refuses to accept the super committee's proposal, the tea party gets what it wants, which is an across the board four percent cut in vital programs like Social Security, college loans and job training.

Just like old American cars, the committee is built to fail and fail it will.

It will be quite easy to tell whether the super committee can succeed. If congressional leaders insist that its members hue to party doctrine, they won’t have much to talk about in the negotiating room. Of course, each side must fight for its own budget priorities, but at the end of the day, both sides will have to agree that fixing the nation’s long-term structural deficit is the higher priority.

The Obama-Boehner negotiations and the Gang of Six have already shown that many Democrats accept that changes to entitlements are necessary and that many Republicans see that additional revenue must be part of the solution. The challenge is to expand those numbers with a deal that is a compromise for the larger good.

Are we a AA or a AAA nation? Each party has ideas to contribute, but alone each party doesn't have enough to solve the nation's troubles.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.